Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2016] KEELRC 1258 (KLR)

Johnson Ngonto & 8 Others v Peponi Hotel Limited [2016] KEELRC 1258 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
6 May 2016
OMOnesmus Makau
690 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

An Employment Court in Kenya refused to release money deposited in court because the appealing party had diligently chased delayed court records, showing follow-up correspondence protects you.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimants obtained judgment against the respondent in the sum of approximately Kshs. 2,963,933 on 7 November 2014. The respondent filed a Notice of Appeal, and on 6 March 2015 the parties recorded a consent order staying execution on condition that the respondent deposit the whole decreed sum in court pending appeal. Nearly a year later, no appeal having been filed, the claimants moved by Notice of Motion dated 4 February 2016 seeking release of the deposited sum to their counsel on the ground that the respondent had never filed an appeal after obtaining the stay, and that the claimants needed the funds as they were not in gainful employment. The respondent, through her counsel David Tole, opposed the motion, explaining that she had filed her Notice of Appeal in time, applied for typed proceedings and certified judgment, and written several reminders to the Deputy Registrar, who had failed to supply them. The court framed a single issue: whether the respondent had deliberately defaulted to file her appeal after obtaining the stay. Counsel for the claimants conceded the respondent had written to the Deputy Registrar on several dates seeking proceedings. The court found the respondent had diligently pursued the matter, with all letters acknowledged by the court's official receiving stamp, and could not be accused of indolence; the delay was attributable to the Deputy Registrar. The court declined to set aside the consent stay or release the security. It dismissed the motion, directed the Deputy Registrar to supply certified copies of the typed proceedings and judgment within 30 days upon payment of the necessary court fees, scheduled a mention to confirm compliance, and made no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the respondent deliberately defaulted in filing her appeal after obtaining a consent stay of execution conditioned on deposit of the decreed sum

Holding

The court found the respondent was not to blame for any deliberate neglect to lodge the appeal; the delay was occasioned by the Deputy Registrar's failure to supply typed proceedings and judgment despite timely requests and reminders

Reasoning

The court examined the correspondence between the respondent's counsel and the Deputy Registrar. Notices and reminders dated 11.11.2014, 4.6.2015, 10.8.2015 and 3.2.2016 were produced, and claimants' counsel conceded the respondent had written seeking typed proceedings and certified judgment. The letters bore the court's official receiving stamp, showing active pursuit rather than indolence. The court therefore attributed the delay to the court's own failure to supply the proceedings, not the respondent.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A party who has duly requested typed proceedings and judgment and actively followed up their supply cannot be accused of deliberate neglect or indolence for failing to lodge an appeal within time when the court has not availed the proceedings
  • Letters to the Deputy Registrar acknowledged by the court's official receiving stamp evidence diligent pursuit of proceedings, not mere passive correspondence

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 4.2.2016 is dismissed
  2. 2.The Deputy Registrar to supply the respondent with certified copies of typed proceedings and judgment within 30 days
  3. 3.No order as to costs
  4. 4.Suit to be mentioned before the court on a date to be fixed by the parties to confirm the Deputy Registrar's compliance

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Court of Appeal RulesSection 75
Jurisdiction invoked
Original and supervisory jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over its own decrees and pending appeals (not expressly cited in judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Johnson Ngonto & 8 Others v Peponi Hotel Limited [2016] KEELRC 1258 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/1258/eng@2016-05-06

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.